wilsondcsfandomcom-20200213-history
Marc Hassenzahl et al
Return to Usability Marc Hassenzahl, Axel Platz, Michael Burmester and Katrin Lehner Article: Hedonic and Ergonomic Quality Aspects Determine a Software's Appeal Journal: International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Peer reviewed: Yes 2000 Hassenzahl, M., et al. (2000). Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software's appeal. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM Summary *Examines role of subjectively perceived ergonometric quality (EQ) and hedonic quality (HQ) in forming "judgment of appeal" (APPEAL) Offers research model. Asks two main research questions: #Can EQ and HQ be independently perceived by users? Results say yes. #Is APPEAL formed by combining and weighing EQ and HQ (and which weights are assigned). Results indicate almost equal contribution. Both compensate each other *Discusses limitations and practical implications Definitions *Behavioral usabilty - traditional usability *Emotional usability - degree to which a product is desirable or serves a need beyond traditional functional objective *Ergonomic quality (EQ) - quality dimensions related to traditional usability: efficiency and effectiveness. Focuses on task-related functions or design issues (simplicity, controllability) *Hedonic quality (HQ) - quality dimensions with no obvious relation to the task - originality, innovativeness, beauty (novelty, originality) *Perceived fun - extent to which using a software system is enjoyable in its own right *Perceived useful - extent to which a person believe using software would enhance his or her job performance Introduction *Carroll and Thomas (1988) admonished not to confuse "easy to use" and "fun to use" ** Ease of use inplies simplicity, which is partly incompatible with fun ** As simple as possible could equal boring ** Fun requires "subtle balance" of not too simple, not too challenging (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) * Perceived fun can accelerate user intention if software is already perceived as useful (Davis et al, 1992) ** No effect is not perceived as useful * Equal effect of perceived usefulness and perceived fun on both system usage (Igbaria et al, 2000) ** Perceived fun had stronger impact on user satisfaction * Enhancing perceived fun will lead to increased time in software system ** This may lead to better understanding or more productive use * Perceived fun is independent of efficiency and effectiveness * Above studies do not indicate design features that increase perceived fun * Analysis of what makes computer games fun (Carroll and Thomas, 1988) (Malone, 1981) (Malone, 1984) ** Three broad categories: Challenge, Fantasy, Curiosity ** Fun principles exist which are both consisent and contradictory to usability *** Fantasy is generally consistent with using a metaphor to increase familiarity and therefore usability *** Metaphor must satisfy users' emotional needs *** Curiosity is contradictory to usability to design novel and surprising system *** To be effective, novelty and surprise must impair external consistency of software, which is a core principle of usability * Implicit notion that computer has to be a tool when applied in the workplace ** "things muct be taken seriously" ** need expanded concept of usability adopting enjoyment and satisfaction as major design goals ** being both useful and interesting, software might be appealing and user may enjoy using it ** design user experiences (Laurel, 1993) * Two-component usability concept with behavioral and emotional usability (Logan, 1994) ** No model or data on how these influence each other * Impact of visual design on expected/apparent usability before actually using it (Burmester et al, 1999) (Kurosu and Kashimura, 1995) (Tractinsky, 1997) ** Establish visual design as a key design factor Research Model *Objective quality aspects: EQ vs HQ *Perceived quality aspects: EQ vs HQ *Evaluation of software: judgment of appeal (APPEAL) *Consequences of software: emotional outcomes - enjoyment, frustration, etc Model elements *software viewed as appealing depends heavily on user perception of quality aspects *objective usability is not always perceived by users *APPEAL differs from mere quality aspects **formed by weighting and combinging EQ and HQ *Emotional outcomes conceptualized as consequence of using system **not design goal **not included in this study Research Questions #Are EQ and HQ subjectively different quality aspects that can be independently perceived? #Is APPEAL formed by combining and weighting EQ and HQ? #Which weights are assigned to EQ and HQ? #Investigated EQ, HQ, and APPEAL before and after using system Method *20 participants (6 women, 14 men), employees of Siemens, Munich *Seven software prototypes designed for user to switch off a pump in an assumed industry plant **realistic task from unfamiliar domain, reducing unwanted comparisons to existing software **each allowed task completion, but strongly varied in design and interaction style **Flaws in design were not corrected *Semantic differential built to measure EQ, HQ, APPEAL **7-point scale with bipolar anchors **Measurements obtained twice: before and after use *Participant led to lab **Prototypes presented in random order **Asked for initial assessment **Asked to select running pump and turn it off. ***Some prototypes had confirmation questions ***Participant had to wait until convinced pump came to a stop **Asked to revise assessment **Procedure repeated for the other six prototypes Results *High consistency with theoretically assumed factors EQ and HQ *EQ and HQ are perceived as independent quality concepts *EQ and HQ almost equally contribute to APPEAL **No interaction of EQ and HQ was found **Averaging model depending on both factors Discussion *Users can distinguish task-related aspects from non task-related aspects *Data indicate ease of use implies simplicity, which is partly incompatible with fun (Carroll and Thomas, 1988) *Might be impossible to maximize both HQ and EQ **Innovation might be perceived as complex **Simple might be perceived as boring **APPEAL is highly consistent ***consistent with averaging model of Information Integration Theory (Anderson, 1981) ***cautiously conclude APPEAL is valuable for guiding future research **Expected APPEAL seems more based on HQ **Experienced APPEAL seems based on both EQ and HQ **In general HQ increases, EQ decreases Limitations *Effects may depend on the prototypes used, generalization may be limited *Validity of scales remains unanswered, although reliability helped by internal consistency and factorial validity *Lack of judgemental context **Future study shoul explicitly address situation for use of software *Short interaction time Practical implications *HQ should explicitly be taken into account when designing software *Designers should strive for subtle balance of EQ and HQ *Identify ways to introduce novelty and surprise without sacrificing familiarity * Abstract The present study examines the role of subjectively perceived ergonomic quality (e.g. simplicity, controllability) and hedonic quality (e.g. novelty, originality) of a software system in forming a judgement of appeal. A hypothesised research model is presented. The two main research question are: (1) Are ergonomic and hedonic quality subjectively different quality aspects that can be independently perceived by the users? and (2) Is the judgement of appeal formed by combining and weighting ergonomic and hedonic quality and which weights are assigned? The results suggest that both quality aspects can be independently perceived by users. Moreover, they almost equally contributed to the appeal of the tested sotlware prototypes. A simple averaging model implies that both quality aspects will compensate each other. Limitations and practical implication of the results are discussed.